Scalia Defends Hunting Trip With Cheney

[rodbarnett]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia strongly indicated he will ignore calls to recuse himself from a court case involving his friend and hunting partner, Vice President Dick Cheney.

Scalia told a gathering at Amherst College on Tuesday night there was nothing improper about his accompanying Cheney to Louisiana last month to hunt ducks. The trip came three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bush administration's appeal in a case involving private meetings of Cheney's energy task force.

"It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual," Scalia said in response to a question from the audience of about 600 people. "This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040211/D80L5E1O0.html

[indypaul]

1. Sieg Heil n/t

[Endangered Specie]

44. Very good citizen, keep that hand high, and never ask questions!

[UpInArms]

2. how appropriate

"Quack Quack"

I was always told that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- then by Gawd -- IT'S A DUCK!!!

Scalia is so dirty no amount of soap and elbow polish will ever clean him up.

:puke:

[benfranklin1776]

9. Quack Quack?

Well that statement is an improvement over the quality of his opinions to be sure. That is about the most intelligent thing that imperial court jester has ever said.

Being Supreme Court Jester means never having to follow the rules that the "little judges" do like the rules of judical conduct. Obviously those papers are damning. He knows if he recuses then it could end up 4-4 and the lower court ruling stands and the papers must be opened. This needs to be made a huge issue in the campaign, particularly since Junior has cited him as an example of his ideal justice. So if his idea of an ideal justice is one who flaunts the rules with impunity to benefit his cronies then people need to be reminded.

[MurrayDelph]

25. besides

he's a Shyster, not a quack!

[jayfish]

3. He Must Be Recused. Simlpy For The Fact...

that he sees nothing wrong with the event in question. This cannot be allowed to stand.

Jay

[joeunderdog]

28. The inherent danger is not seeing the difference between

what is legal and what is ethical. How does a SCJ not understand (or respect) this?

Does every conservative decision have to be made on the basis of loosely connected technicalities and plausible deniability. What about Just doing the right thing because you are above partisan games-playing? It wasn't that long ago when things worked that way to at least some degree.

[tom_paine]

32. He sees it, he just doesn't care

Like Hitler's judges.

Like Stalin's judges.

Like every judge who has betrayed their office to bootlick Totalitarian Scum.

He understands perfectly well, but how can he tell his 2nd vote (Slappy Thomas) how to vote if he isn't there himself?

He has the arrogant contempt for law which is comon to Totalitarian Scum, be they homegrown in the Amerikan Empire or foreign.

[benfranklin1776]

35. Indeed.

We can call him "{IN}Justice Rubber Stamp" Scalia. He has slaughtered even the pretense of an independent judiciary right along with the legions of pen raised waterfowl he and Dick take delight in exterminating.

[eyesroll]

4. Quack quack?

:eyes:

[ixion]

7. indeed... Quack Quack

see related 'Quack' thread....



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=34073

[UpInArms]

12. thanks for the link

:thumbsup:

[Malva Zebrina]

5. never ever admit you were wrong -- in fact act

more aggressive , willful and repeat and spin the offense into something that is good--it is those who would question who are in the wrong.

Our system is very broken. It is chock full of bloviating liars, and men so puffed up with themselves that they do not care if they break it further as long as they maintain their image and their power and their money.

[enough]

6. Where do we put the pressure?

If Scalia is adamant about not recusing, is there anywhere we can turn to put pressure on him. I can't imagine that any amount of communication to his office will change his mind.

Any thoughts?

[colonel odis]

8. i would say the court of public opinion

yell long enough and loud enough and make him look like such a crooked boob, he'll have to recuse himself just to make the noise stop.

[salinen]

10. "Oh hey there Tony, whatzzup?"

"Hey Dicky, wanna blast some waterfowl this weekend? Same jet, same taxpayer trip, whaddasay?"

"Kill some innocents, whaddayah think? And no talkin about business, hehe, those fools can pack sand."

"Dicky, you may possibly be my hero"

"Gee, thanks Tony, I think you're pretty swell too."

[jpak]

11. Is Scalia smoking quack?

or has the guy quacked up?

Yikes!

[Bandit]

13. Here a Quack, there a Quack,~ we know a real Quack

America is shuddering.

[stevedeshazer]

14. What an ass.

As a University of Oregon fan, I am offended.

[aquart]

15. Unfit for office.

[nolabels]

16. So let me get this straight

In his single vote in the 5 to 4 decision to negate the majority of the voting US population and install * and cabal was done because he wanted to go Duck hunting with Dick?

[Doctor Pedantic]

17. As a lawyer, I'm really worried about Scalia

Scalia is an absolutely brilliant man whose opinions tend to be well-reasoned and intellectually honest. I pretty much always disagree with him, but he has always been a worthy adversary.

But something is starting to go wrong. His dissent in the Lawrence case (re the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians) was out of control. It was not based on reason, or on the law, but instead on his emotions and religious fervor. I was very disappointed in his opinion, not based on the result (which was a foregone conclusion), but based on his abandonment of any semblance of intellectual integrity.

And now this. The standard is not "was it wrong." It's, is there an "appearance of impropriety." You'd have to be a lunatic to say this doesn't look improper. Scalia's inability to see that, along with his Lawrence dissent, make me worry that the guy is simply losing it.

But the saddest and most cynical part of this whole debate is that most people are saying that the duck-hunting trip won't have any outcome on the pending case, because we all know that Scalia has always planned to rule in Cheney's favor. It just goes to show that, post-Bush v. Gore, there's no respect left for the institution of the Supreme Court. And I find that tragic.

[Bandit]

21. I for one have no Respect left for the supreme Court

It is Tragic I agree but it is also the truth. There is no longer an impartial Supreme Court in the United States of America and no sane thinking person could disagree.

[Hamlette]

29. great reply, Doctor Pedantic

And "Quack, quack" is the best thing I've heard from him. Made me laugh. It's funny and I've never heard him attempt humor before.

I'll have to go read Lawrence now. At least Scalia's opinion.

Religious nut cases are starting to scare me.

[pinto]

39. kick, for "appearance of impropriety" standard. sad to have a SC Judge

be in a position to "defend" his actions outside the court....

[Malva Zebrina]

40. Scalia, it is rumored, is Opus Dei

along with Thomas

[depakid]

47. Actually the man's a first class sophist

and intellectually dishonest to the core. He's an ideologue, plain and simple. He cares absolutely NOTHING about the law as an independent body of work unless it suits his own purposes. We have a name for his brand of thinking- it's called results oriented jurisprudence- and in Scalia's case, the results are almost always unjust, vindictive or political.

It surprises me not even slightly that he's declined to recuse himself in what Josephson (the de facto Dean of legal ethics) has called "an easy case." Were he a state judge, he'd be disciplined or "defrocked" by a commission on judicial fitness and probably have to deal with the state bar as well.

If the American system of checks and balances had any semblance of integrity left (or if the Democrats in Congress were not invertibrates) Scalia would be facing impeachment- if not for his opinions (a la William O. Douglas) then for his blatant disregard for legal ethics in his contacts with the executive (a la Abe Fortas).

[Malva Zebrina]

48. thanks eom

[Fenris]

18. Antonin Scalia gives a negative protrayal of Italian-Americans!

Where are those people who hated the Sopranos because it stereotyped Italian-Americans? This guy is the ultimate negative portrayal! I say the Italian-American community band together and call for his removal from office.

[Terran]

19. The "appearance of impropriety"!

Hey Nino, what about that? You *may* be technically correct on that rather obtuse point about Cheny not being the actual defendant, but you have certainly created an appearance of a conflict of interest! How can you sit there and deny it, yuo f*cking rightwing windbag?

[The Night Owl]

20. This is insane...

Republicans are acting as though they own the game now. Something is up.

[0rganism]

26. They do own the game, and we're all bettin' fools

You name it, Republicans own it.

The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of federal gov't? Yup.

The Press and Mass Media? Yup.

The Big Companies with Big Lobbying Power? Yup.

The Companies that manufacture voting machines? Yup.

You'd better believe something's up, cos the only way this administration is stepping down is if republicans decide they're bad for business.

[ms_splash]

22. In other words, "Quack you!"

[David Zephyr]

23. When Will Pseudo Liberals Catch On That We Live in a Fascist State?

Does anyone here really think that the U.S. Supreme Court is on the side of the people? Pulleaze. Grow up.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. I think all liberals get that the USSC is the key issue in this election

and that's why beating Bush trumps all....enough 5-4 decisions have convinced us of that.

[David Zephyr]

42. A Country Club to Protect the Country Club

"Complimenting Scalia's hunting skills, (Justice) Ginsburg told more than 300 people at a Rotary Club of Honolulu luncheon that a deer killed by her colleague made for mouthwatering venison served for New Year's, which the Scalias and Ginsburgs typically spend together."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. And in other news

Baseball referee denies hugging and kissing NY Yankees batter after home run was "improper".

Edit: Yankees. Knicks is basketball. Duh.

[DU GrovelBot]

## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[xxqqqzme]

30. by his very quack defense

of the quack trip - he is quack proving he should recuse himself quack.

Cheney as 'private' individual (which he is NOT)is not the issue, but then Scalia knows that. Just a little deft deflective move.

[tom_paine]

31. Listen to thank arrogant Totalitarian Bootlicker

"Quack, quack"?!?

What else can I say, but this is a pronouncement that could have easily come out of the arrogant lips of a Nazi "judge", a Soviet "judge" or one of Ferdinand Marcos' handpicked Filipion "judges".

Fat Tony isn't a judge.

He's a bagman for the Imperial Family, plain and simple.

[truthisfreedom]

33. keep him on the defense.

[shimmergal]

34. Didn't Cheney convene the task force because

of his government position? It'ts not exactly like the dinner party conversation of a private individual which is not going to affect public polilcy.

[neverforget]

36. What an arrogant POS

[yellowcanine]

37. Scalia defends the indefensible - no moral authority left

This is raw hubris Scalia is displaying here. He has no sense of the importance of an independent judiciary and corresponding moral authority in a democracy. He will "get away" with this unless one of his wingnut allies chooses to take him aside and counsel him as to the impropriety of this. Barring that - it will stand but hubris will always eventually come back to bite you. In this case it may be sooner rather than later because several of his fellow justices may resent his behavior for the way it reflects on them and the institution of the SCOTUS - They may go out of their way to distance themselves from Scalia on the Cheney case. In other words, Scalia will lose his moral authority to lead and will consequently not be able to put together majorities on closely divided issues. So it is 5-4 in our favor (assuming Scalia would be on the "other" side, which is a fairly safe assumption).

[0rganism]

38. As long as he's defending, he won't be "legislating from the bench"

I like it. Keep this pigfucker on the defense as long as possible. In the fine spirit of Karl Rove, Make him defend his reputation and his investments and his family life and his choice of footwear. Move the goalposts when necessary.

No more softballs. It's long past time for liberals to embrace partisanship the way the neo-cons have. Our unions have faltered, our politicians have compromised or been compromised, our hopes and dreams are shattered. It's time to fight back.

[pacifictiger]

41. just curious

but when was he installed and by whom?

[Jacobin]

46. King George the First, I believe

[indepat]

43. Only when Scalia votes for Cheney to turn over the records will most of

us likely believe his impartiality, his lack of a conflict-of-interest. But don't hold your breath or bet your house that he will vote against Cheney.

[opihimoimoi]

45. Quack quack

The S dude is a rude MFr. screw him. :puke: